if the court continues down the path of sitting dog sniffs are not searches at all, law enforcement will be completely unfettered to use drug dogs however they wish. that could lead to a random sweeps of neighborhoods where people. limited and only by the restrictions the fourth abutment has on seizures. more broadly, again, as technology develops, if the court continues down the path of sitting there are some searches that, a detect contraband and are not searches at all, the encroachments on our privacy are going to increase ever further

as technology moves on. >> i was a little puzzled as to what the florida supreme court really meant -- really wanted in the harris case. it is not just enough to say the dog has been certified, you need more performance evidence. how would that work? every time there is a case where drug evidence is used, the prosecution would have to come and and a show, what, there is some sort of test? he has gone out 100 times -- what would be the evidence that would be enough to convince a judge this dog was reliable? what's the traditional test for probable cause is the totality of the circumstances. i think the state is advocating, if a police officer

gets on the stand and says this dog is trained, that should be enough. we are arguing, no, no one should look at the totality of circumstances. there cannot be a prescribed checklist that needs to be checked off. something more than the assertion that a dog is trained is an order. that might be a description as to how the dog is trained and the record of its performance and training. it might be the record of the dog's performance in the field. it alerted so many times and was correct y %. the judge can take this evidence into account and make a decision based on these circumstances. >> or have a right to cross- examine the dog. >> first of all, it should find

a search accord here because through the use of the dog smith made perceptible that which otherwise could not perceive it. it will shift the focus of a inquiry to what the fourth amendment calls for. was it a reasonable warrantless search or should the government have gotten a warrant? if the court does not rule that way, i suppose they could rely on a reasonable expectation of privacy. if they go the other way and grow for the state, that would allow not only dog sniffs, but as i alluded to earlier, one ever the government wanted to, all manner of inspection, analysis, monitoring and or you can come up with for a warrantless search. >> police dogs can just go one

place or the other stopping at every door in apartments and seth and it would be quite a change in of the law if you could go into apartments based on something like that. >> this case comes at an interesting time in the privacy world. we are still thinking about the court to's recent opinion in the united states versus jones. that was a case that was narrowly decided by justice scalia largely on a trespass and installation of gps device. there seems to be almost a shadow majority in the case. the reason i am thinking about jones and answering this question is that i think the

court has become increasingly aware of the role technology is playing in a law-enforcement world. it has clearly shown sensitivity to wear lines need to be drawn. one of my favorite lines that we cited frequently and our bruce -- it is by justice o'connor, who on the one hand groped in 1983 -- views on the fourth amendment have evolved over time. from arizona versus evans, a sayscase, justice o'connor the police should not be denied benefits of new technology. at the same time with new technology comes the burdens of constitutional responsibility. in thinking about this case, we would want to the court to affirm the decision of the florida supreme court, we would

also like the court to take a half step forward and said, we recognize the value of these techniques, but they need to be used independently evaluation. i think mr. falco agrees with this point. if they take that step -- >> can i ask you one other related question? we have been talking about marijuana, cocaine, which are bad. suppose the issue was that we had heard a report that the gas had been set off in the subway in the new york and a report is something to happen in washington. suppose the police on case street or the 14th street bridge said we are going to use a detector, ever come of it comes into the city we are going to see if this car possibly has -- it does that change everything?

is that ok? >> in a way, i think it hides the. we are trying to make. our view is good scientific techniques not only protect the innocent from the suspect but also improve the efficiency of law enforcement resources. and so you wanted techniques that have essentially been tested and evaluated to address the problem. if you fail to take the step, our concern is that law enforcement says, we have a terrible problem here. we cannot go through the normal steps we would go through to establish fourth amendment probable cause. just stand up of the way. that kind of message to the courts, i think, poses a real threat. our argument is partly that the

greater the need for law enforcement search, the more emphasis that should be placed on the reliability of the techniques being deployed. >> the purpose of research matters. in in the sense it is being done for national security service, i have less problem with a. the new -- when a cia entered its summary, it is to find out what ever the case may be. >> we are very familiar with the argument. it is a dangerous argument. it is standing the fourth amendment on its head and saying we are no longer concerned about several of techniques because we cannot use the evidence in a criminal investigation. that is what open the door to the expansion of the national security letter authority. we recognize legitimate interest in using these techniques.

the fourth amendment is not only a determination as to probable cause, it also defines a structure in the relationship between the government. that is why the courts have to stay engaged in and the use of new techniques. they cannot say, this is important, you do what you need to do. that is not permissible under the constitutional structure. >> i am just sitting the evaluation that might need to be -- if it was permitted in some case involving gas or assuming the technology was reliable enough, what did not mean the technology from the drugs, you can go and prosecute for the drugs to incidently found? crux the court has already signaled that. and and the dissent, he reserved the question of whether there would be a different analysis

and the kiss of explosives. the court has already made this type of distinction. a random highway checkpoint for drug detection is not constitutional. one for the purpose of finding drunk drivers or threatening safety on the highways, maybe. the court first tester a knowledge of what is going on as a search. then it becomes, is this a reasonable search and given all the circumstances. i should say, for one thing i would like to say in response to jeff. one thing i disagree with is, i think in the court does not necessarily know how things work in the real world, but they want to know. one of the things that has been done here that is very helpful is a glut of groups have come in and given the court a lot of

information as to how things work in in the real world. i think that will be useful to the court. >> the reason i feel strongly that many of the justices did not want to know, and my kids, the details are not that important now. we have time problems. the issue was the search of a vehicle. all the driver of the vehicle has to do is to say, stop searching and the police will stop. the justice marshall burst out and laughed. the entire gallery of the supreme court laughed because in reality that would never happen in the real world. it is the same thing here. the issue you ask is what should they do in these cases. here is the problem from the get go.

whether an alert by a well- trained narcotics dog certifies to detect contraband is by itself is sufficient to establish probable cause. the entire question itself is improper. there is no such thing as a well-trained narcotics dog. it means whatever trial judge or appellate judge wants it to mean. that is the problem. a danger my opinion, this should uphold the cases. they should go forward and say that a dog alert to buy itself should never the " probable cause. there must be other objectives, articular bowl evidence. then the dog alert is merely a tool. it is fine. it is break.

in and of itself as of monday enough. i do know how many of you are lawyers, but when you have eight movable objects like a car. the courts to mayor require a search warrant and martha instances. a police officer says, they get a full-blown search. under the fourth amendment there is no such thing as a partial search. >> ok. any questions from the audience here? >> you do not call for something as extreme are as far-reaching as mr. weiner was takling about.]

tell me about the -- public or make a decision. do you have a different view on that? >> again, i think it is hard to prescribe a particular set of rules. i think the court will be reluctant to do that. these issues are evaluated under the totality of the circumstances. a lawyer on the submission is that it is not enough simply to say the dog is trained. the court can look at how the dog was trained, where the dog was turned, where record of success dogs strain of this facility has, how long the dog and trainer had been working together. what is the dog's record of success out of in the field with detecting drugs is more difficult than in a turning environment.

we do not advocate any particular role. what weight to give to each of them, i think that is a decision to be made by each court. what is really important is to say, it is not enough to just say a dog is trained. there has to be something more. >> for example, on record, very often the police testified -- if you looked at the cases off the field, the only record is when the dog alerted and they found something. in the best of circumstances -- that is what with all the respect what i am saying is not extreme. it is basic for the protection of our fourth amendment rights. >> if you are a trial judge, you only see the cases where the

person comes into court because they found marijuana in the truck. if you are a 12 judge, maybe a dog got lucky this time. the only see the cases where something is found. i think a high score have to say, be skeptical. everything is before you made it is the stigma of a dealer, but you as the judge needs to view that it skeptically and tell the dog hammer and the police, prove it to me this dog is reliable. a thing that is what is being asked. >> i am interested in the issue of technology. if i understand the fourth abutment tisza, there is an issue about the concerns with the government is entomology not

available until the public realm. i am wondering if there is an argument that the dog is not technology in a way that use of a thermal imaging device is. if so, it seems like that would have two locations. one would be a finding. this is not a search? it would perhaps to track from the argument earlier that this is an opportunity to examine all of the government's ability to search using technology. the question is, is there an argument here that use of the dog is not technology a danger of the way the court is using the word? clark's the government has made that argument.

what the court was concerned with is the protections that existed under the fourth amendment at the time of the founding, not incrementally diminished by the advance of technology or dog for -- dog detection is not a technique that has existed for very long. it has only been in general practice for maybe the past few decades. i think the sense in which the court used the term technology and kyloe very clearly does encompass the narcotics detection dogs. >> there is a common sense to you i think to say if you have it volunteer that will look and

and tell what is going on in your house, that seems troubling. a dog seems, it does not seem as frightening or as scary. it is just a dog. i think there is an intuitive sense to say a dog surged smith is located away highly technical device that could peer into your house is different. parts i think -- the court can always find the most narrow issue to resolve. the argument for functional equivalence, it is very strong. we understand this type of technique a can be replicated through a mechanical device. what is the difference a couple

of years ago being asked to answer the question? >> i think the situation might be a little different if all of our room has dogs. setting aside the issue of how specially trained they need to be, it is just like, we could acquire a thermal imaging device. over 90% of the room probably has gps device is on our phones. it is a little counter intuitive to think of dogs as an advanced technology. it is a searching devise policies must avesta have. >> >> what is the big deal with

the dog? it is bought a big deal with the machine. when you are pulled over and you are told to get out of your car, and a line you and your wife or your husband or your boyfriend and girlfriend and her kids out. they take the dog and go up and down sniffing you and your crotch and your legs and looking all over, that is not intrusive? to me that is worse than a machine. i do not think we can can see that point. >> the staff by the dog would provide probable cause. and there is also the problem of the residual odors. i was wondering if mr. falco had any idea what would be a fair way to determine what the record

of success is. if the dog does not necessarily get it wrong just because he alerts to a cut in the locker has drugs adulterate it. >> of research should be documented. the matter whether they find anything or not. there is going to be times the dog .... i have had them search because we had to tear apart to find where it was hidden. there will be times we do not have the luxury to do so. we go where we can with of the tools and come up with nothing. there are times when it is hidden in a difficult place for us to prove. we do not necessarily put false alerts. i know that will raise some hairs. no usable quantities found. as of the things we usually use

and court. because of the problems within the compartments, all of those things are well documented. >> how would the records and form whether the dog is reliable or not. >> when i of looking at a case i did call to look at, it tells me the hammer is on a search and nothing is bound in his documenting there's things. there is no way a man finds something really time. he is it a really good at profiling or whatever. that is just not possible. >> to take it a step further, let's say the trial judge says, -- great foris

what? should that be probable cause? 40% or 54% or 64%. is that enough to do it with the fourth amendment rights? please ask yourself one other question. when the breeze were filed, who fell on the other side? many attorneys general of many state, police and killed nine organizations, all people who have an interest in not having suffered me for these kid nine searches. if they are doing it right, what did not welcome scrutiny? >> one more thing as to what jeffrey said earlier, we never search bodies when we are using the narcotics detection dogs. too many things can happen. sometimes that is done with explosive detection box of the airport. as far as my experience, there are probably some that do that, but not too many.

>> i chrysomelid know a case where it has happened. >> i am sitting it does not happen a lot. >> we are talking about two situations. one is where a dog sniffs again in public permits a warrantless search of a vehicle or person. the other situation is where a dog sniffs itself and is considered efficient for a warrant to search a home. you remember when the lot was such that when a court document was issued the system if a mission provided on the street, the trial judge's would question whether the warrant itself made of a case for the reliability of the informant. that law has changed 30 years ago.

if a warrant is issued on the basis of a violent and evidence is found, that judges no longer has the right to question whether the dog actually was reliable. the fact that the search warrant was issued was sufficient to justify the search on the basis of the officer pose a good faith. >> we discuss this in detail, and you are absolutely right. this is why these cases are so critically important. they do not go far enough because the protections under the best circumstances, a dock surgical is probable cause, either for the media search or a search warrant does not protect the public. >> are there any questions for the panelists? quirks with all due respect,

your statement was a little too broad. they're a -- >> if the officer affirmatively lies above the qualification of his dog and you can prove that a central the course of the hearing, that is an exception to the warrant. otherwise, the reality is that once a warrant is issued, that search is going to be deemed good it. >> what i wanted to ask you about, i agree with the supreme court sitting the courts have changed your reply was thinking is that, that is all police officers ever said about the performance.

he is never given false of permission. everything he has ever said has been true. this has led to the recovery of millions of people. as all this a. has anyone on the other side said something like that? we do not have to dress up as the real -- reliability of our performance, wide our dogs? second of all, does anybody else think the court is going to demand more explanation above the turning of the dogs that the rea -- the reliability? >> it is interesting. the state brief actually concedes police to have to establish the reliability of their informants. it says that should not be the case for dogs. dogs do not lie. therefore, we should not have to

establish stocks are reliable. as a matter of what happens again to the real world, the requirement to establish a real liability is not always honored. the way it has been framed for the court is that it is required and the issue should be, to do the same for dogs. >> it is required, but only in the sense amid the conclusion very statements it is reliable. there is no way to get the underlying documentation to see if he ever has -- it is just a conclusion there a statement. you make it almost impossible to get it in the context as opposed to a trial. that is not considered the same weight. it is the equivalent just as

real as saying the dogs trained. >> i have been doing this for 30 years. >> we all have. i think you're saying is an absolutely correct. there is no real means to enforce the requirements of the fourth amendment. i think what we are going to see and talk about is whether our security in our prisons, in public, and the privacy of our home is only as secure as the twins and the impulses of a from a dog. >> we do not know what the odds are alerting to or why. >> the court is hearing these two kisses on october 31. i do not know if that is a bad omen. we will be interested in hearing what they have to sit next week. thank you for being here.

[applause] >> thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> we will show you a third party candidates debate including gary johnson, jill stein, rocky anderson. it is moderated by larry king. that is today at 10:35 eastern on c-span. >> washington, d.c. mentality that you bring to the election would you make these assault attacks, you bring the little depth to your analysis of problems that leads them to conclude that, i am the clear choice to be governor. they are clearly not conservatives, but in every

single case they had decided strongly that i am the choice for governor, not you. i am sorry he did not answer the question when it was addressed. >> 15 seconds for the question, make it a question again. >> i am endorsed by planned parenthood of washington because of my consistent support of women's health care. you have been reluctant to state your position on any number of petitions or less to a different way. what have you done to assist but women's access to choice and a woman's access to contraceptive services and health care in general? >> that is a good question. you suggest that i have not clearly stated my position. think judges clearly stated its a few days ago at the last time we had a debate when i was asked the very question.

>> follow the issues and candidates on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org/campaign 2012. >> paul ryan is making a number of stops the ginger ohio this weekend. here he speech to supporters of in zanesville. [applause] >> how you doing out here, huh? we are more excited. paul ryan is here, the next vice president of the united states. my wife and my children are here. would you give them all a round of applause? [applause] they have to put up with all of this. you know the situation. we are doing better. i hope you agree we are doing better.

and we went from a loss of 400,000 jobs and we are up 112,000 now. we went from $8 billion in the hole to a balanced budget. not bad, huh? we are now the number four job creator in the united states and number 1 in the midwest. why? because of all of you. but the problem we have -- every day i think about these numbers and these headwinds that keep pushing us back. and the head winds are coming from washington. there are a lot of people here that are small business people. you are the heroes. the small business people deserve a great round of applause for what they do in

employing our families. [applause] when we have a federal government that has a $16 trillion national debt, i can't even figure out what those numbers are. we have got these young people here, like my daughter's. we do not have the right to make them pay for the rest of their lives for the fact that we could not get our spending under control. it would be no different than running up credit card bills and passing them on to our kids. we would not do that. so why do we let the government do this? it is time to end that. we have got to move to a balanced budget. it will give us more success. you know, they are talking about -- president obama is talking about a tax increase. there are two of things wrong with that. one is that i happen to know where the money goes. and secondly, raising taxes on people is not the answer in washington. i was there when we balance the budget in 1997. and we cut taxes. we did not raise taxes. to give them more money, they will spend it.

it will hurt small businesses and hurt our ability to create jobs. that is why so many small business people have been paralyzed. and then come the regulations. a small business person, man or woman, it needs to be treated like a delicate flower. you have got to water it, you have got to take care of it, a little loving care. you do not crush it -- somebody that does not understand small business. it is hard to start. it is hard to keep it going. but small business is the engine of economic growth. it is where we get our jobs from. yet, we have all these people in washington who give us this top-down approach to how we will grow jobs. and it is really hurting our small businesses in this state. between the debt and the threat of tax increases and the paralyzing regulations, as well as ohio is doing, we are being held back.

what do we need to do? well, we've got mitt romney who was a job creator. the most important moral issue is job creation. when people work, moms and dads are happier, their marriages are better and their children do better. when mom and dad are out of work, is the children that suffer. mom and dad are not as strong as when things are going better. that is the moral issue. and mitt romney is a job creator. that is what he did all his life. then he became a governor and he inherited a state with the deficits were high, people were out of work. when he left, what was the story? he balanced the budget, ran a surplus, and the people back to work. and then i think you saw with one of these videos about the olympics. that is leadership. you go out there, the thing is a mess and you turn it around because you are a leader. that is why it is so important we elect romney, because it is

these kids' future that is at stake. it is the strength of the family that is at stake. now, i have to tell you, i have been referring to paul ryan as the paul revere of the next generation, ok? i've known paul ryan for a long time. unfortunately, he is a lot younger than i am. in fact, when i was budget committee chairman, he worked on the staff of the budget committee. but he stood out like no one else on that staff. then he was elected to congress. our careers are very similar because he has taken on these issues, these a debt issues and economic issues and the job issues for our country. i have to tell you, when you are in washington doing that, it is a lonely trek up the mountain. but he has never wavered. he also understands that we need economic growth.

and it is not just about cutting government. it is about making it work better and providing the incentives necessary like lower taxes and common-sense regulations so that our companies can do well. what is exciting about this ticket is we have mitt romney with great experience and we have a young, energetic next vice president of the united states who is so intellectually smart, understands the families. he comes from blue-collar areas from wisconsin where he gets the working people in this country, which is so important. and he gives such a burst of energy. and his appeal to the young people of this country is overwhelming. i am so proud to know him and to be his pal and to watch what he has done in his lifetime. he is just getting started. he is getting started in the

process of healing america and building a much stronger america. that is what we hope for, that the next generation will do better than this generation. the same way what we got from our parents we want to give to our children. without any further ado, a great zanesville welcome to the next vice-president of the united states -- paul ryan. [rock music playing] >> hey, everybody, how are you doing, zanesville? good to see you. let me introduce you to my family. try to give them a microphone. thanks, ladies. this is my wife, our son charlie, sam, and our daughter liza.

say hi, everybody. i almost slipped and said, hello, zanesville. i almost said hello, janesville. that is where i am from. i am born and raised in a place called janesville, wisconsin. i went to school with a guy from zanesville, ohio. his family had some dry cleaners here. gus is one of my friends from college. go redhawks, go blue devils. right? i have got to say, the hospitality, the warmth from people in the buckeye state has been tremendous. thank you. i spent four great years at miami, living in ohio. the hospitality and the warmth that we had. go miami -- we call them something different when i was there.

redskins. what i see and sense and hear and feel are people who care so deeply about their country, who care so deeply about their community and people who are bringing their kids on their shoulders who care about the next generation. thank you for coming out today. thank you for coming through the rain and standing in the line of the middle of the morning for doing this. we have a big choice. this is not who is president for four more years. and we are not talking about small things. we have serious problems in this country that require urgent, immediate, serious solutions. let me read you a quote. "if you do not have any fresh ideas, use scare tactics to scare voters. if you do not have a record, you paint your opponent as some one people should run from. you make the big election about small things."

do you know who said that? >> obama. >> barack obama when he ran for president in 2008. unfortunately, turn on your tv. that is exactly what president obama has become these days. you see, he cannot run on his record. we have 23 million people struggling for work. we have factories that are closed. we lost 600,000 manufacturing jobs since he took office. 38,000 in the last two months. we are going in the wrong direction. the economy was supposed to be growing twice as fast today. if only we had passed his plan. guess what? the obama economic agenda failed not because it was stopped. it failed because it was passed. he came into congress with full control of washington. he had the house and the senate and the white house. and he passed his agenda. he passed his stimulus plan with all of the borrowing and the spending.

it failed to create the jobs they said it would. then he turned his attention for a year and a half to have the government takeover of health care. then he turned his attention to an energy policy where you try to get a new national energy tax on all of our consumption. he did not get that one through the senate. he got it through the house. then he started regulating. if you are a manufacturer, or a small business, what you see coming from washington? you see more regulation, more red tape. the promise of higher taxes. you see a government spending money it does not have, borrowing beyond its means, borrowing from china to fund its government. which simply means we will have a debt crisis just like europe. we cannot afford four more years like this last four years. we cannot stand for that. the president is not giving us much of a second term agenda. he is not saying, here are my abc's. he put out a brochure the other

day. but you do not have to read it to know where we are headed. we know he is promising a $2 trillion tax increase in january. of the 21 tax increases in obama-care, 12 of them will hit middle income tax payers. remember when he said he would not have a tax increase? there are 12 episodes, examples where he failed to do that. do you remember when he said he would cut the deficit in half over four years? we have had trillion dollar deficits each year. remember when he said he would bring people together to solve the countries biggest problems? this is the third president i served with. it is the most partisan atmosphere i have ever seen. look, look at john kasich. i learned a lot from that man. i came as a young guy in congress under his leadership. following the same trail he blazed. here is a guy, who sees a problem and runs at the problem.

that is what leadership is. we got big problems. we do not want a president blaming somebody else for four years. we do not want a president ducking the tough issues, demagoguing the other party. we want a president who will lead and fix this mess and solve our problems and get this country back on the right track. [applause] so it is not enough for us to complain about the broken promises or to simply highlight the fact that president obama cannot run on his record so he is trying to distort hours and distract people to win by default. this is why we are offering specific solutions, specific ideas in how to create 12 million jobs, how to get people back to work, how to confront our problems. number one, and here in ohio, here in this part of ohio, we have so much energy in this country.

let's use this energy and put people back to work. let's use our coal and natural gas and oil and renewables. if we do this, that means american energy dollars go to american jobs. it helps manufacturers and brings down the price of energy. if the president gets reelected, he will keep regulating. he will keep shutting down federal land and shutting down oil and gas exploration. he will keep his war on coal. he will go back for his national energy tax. on day one, when we have a president romney and they asked him if he can build the keystone pipeline, he will say yes. let's get that oil coming into this country instead of going to china. now, janesville is not all that different then zanesville. in the kind of towns we are. in my hometown, we lost a big

factor. we used to build suburbans and tahoes for gm. we used to say as gm goes, so goes janesville. we lost our plant. a lot of my friends from high school thought they could make a living for their families, they lost that. that livelihood is gone. i have a buddy that went from $25 an hour down to $9 an hour without benefits. we have got to help these people who are stuck in between, who are in the middle of their earning years when they are supposed to be building for their family, saving for their family, putting themselves on the path of pursuing their version of happiness, making the american dream realized for themselves and their kids. we have 46 job-training programs coming out of washington, spread across seven

agencies. it is nothing but bureaucracy. the bureaucrats of the way, give people the ability to take this and get people the skills they need so they can get the jobs they want in the 21st century and have themselves back on the path to prosperity. it is so essential. open up energy, get people the skills they need, and it just like a case of common sense, we have to stop spending money we do not have. we have got to balance this budget. we have an obligation. because this debt hurts our economy today, because this debt, today's deficits are nothing more than tomorrow as a tax increase. because it threatens businesses in the future and threatens jobs today, and because we know without a shred of doubt that these young kids in this room are inheriting an inferior standard of living. i know when my three kids are my age, the size of government then will be doubled if we are on the path we are on. we know we are giving them a diminished future. we have never done that in this

country before. the president, he wanted to think that all these problems can be solved if we tax a few rich people. it is like let's tax a baseball player, a movie star, a wall street guy and we can pay for everything. by the way, this tax increase he is talking about, not only does it not even pay for 10% of his deficit spending. it taxes small businesses. 8-10 businesses in america file their taxes as people. and their tax rate will go above 40% in january according to the obama plan. overseas, they do not do that. overseas, that means lake superior, where i come from. and the canadians, they lowered their tax rate to all their businesses to 15% less generous. our competitors tax their businesses at 25% or less. how are we going to make things and bring back manufacturing jobs in ohio and in big ten country if we keep taxing our businesses at twice the rate our foreign competitors do?

that will not work. that is why we have a five- point plan. that is why we have this agenda. get behind small businesses, lower tax rate. that is the essence of president obama's economic agenda -- take more from families and small businesses, regulate everybody, and pick winners and losers from washington. it does not work -- or just the losers if you want to look at his track record. look, a person who works hard, who plays by the rules can get ahead and america. that was what we teach our children. your business success, your success in your job, your success in your business should not be dependent upon who you know in washington. it should be dependent upon how hard you work, are you getting ahead, is your government

getting out of your way, can you compete, can you be on a level playing field? are we removing barriers to ohio businesses? are we cracking down on countries that sheet? those are the things. this is why we are going to you and saying, there is a better way. we know how to create jobs because we have done in america before. and we know that if we simply give four more years of this strategy, following europe, we will end up like europe. we are deciding that kind of people we are going to be in the kind of country we are going to give our kids. and so we are asking for your votes. we are asking for your help. we are asking for you to go find those people that you know in every single one of you know somebody that voted for obama because they thought hope and change sounded good. but now know that it did not happen. it is not real. hope and change has become an anger, frustration, divide and

conquer. we're not going to fall for that, are we? >> no. >> so we got 10 days to go. as you look at the closing arguments, we are talking about what will take to get people back to work, the type of leadership that may lead -- mitt romney has provided throughout his life at running at problems to solve problems. there have been hundreds of millions of dollars of negative advertising tried to disqualify mitt romney. but what we know is that this is a man of integrity, this is a man of principle, this is a man who knows how to create jobs, a man we would be proud to call our president. of all things we know about mitt romney, leadership comes to mind. one of my favorite historians passed away a couple weeks ago. he said the great characteristics of a leader, a common theme of leaders to step up to the plate to help other countries in times of need had these four characteristics. a moral compass, a bedrock of principles, of vision for the country and the ability and experience skills to execute

the vision by working with people. that is exactly what mitt romney has done throughout his life. that is the kind of governor and businessman he was, that is the kind of leader he was and that is the kind of president he is going to be. [applause] but it's bigger than getting more jobs in zanesville or janesville. it's about what kind of country we are going to be. when you think about it, america is so unique because we are an idea. we are not just a country with a flag. we are not just the badgers versus the buckeyes, which is after the election. we are not wisconsin-ohio, maine versus california. thomas jefferson wrote in the declaration of independence. "our rights as people come from nature and nature's god, not

from government." the government works for us and not the other way around. that is the heart and soul of the american dream. our founders created this and every generation of veterans and secure this. and we are in their debt of gratitude. we owe them a debt of gratitude. thank you to all of our veterans for that. 10 days to go. the debate is occurring. on november 6, you make the choice. as you know, just like these to say as gm goes, so goes janesville. as ohio goes, so goes america. i think you know that. thes think about not just obligation we have on november 6 but let's think about how we feel on november 7. let's look forward to when we wake up and turn on the tv. what is it that we want to see?

do we want to see four more years in front of us that we are staring at like the last four years? or do we want to see 10 more days of this stuff and we are back on the road to recovery, real recovery with the real reforms. [applause] let's think about it that way. so that when we wake up, we know we have met this moment the way it needed to be. we know that when we tell our kids and grandkids, this was that inflection point when america chose its path. we are unique, exceptional. our country as a country of hard work. it is a country of playing by the rules and on to performsh-- and entrepreneurship. it is done more to help the people extend the right to rise than any other economic system design. we do not want to replace that. we want to revitalize that. that is what is happening.

and so our commitment to you, our fellow big 10 staters, our fellow citizens, we are not going to run away from these problems or blame people. we are going to take responsibility and lead. we are not going to try to transform this country into something that it was never intended to be. we will reapply the founding principles, not replace them. zanesville, thank you so much for coming out. john kasich, thank you for your great leadership. thank you, all. appreciate it. [music playing] ♪

>> i was born free i was born free born free free like a river raging strong in the wind i'm facing chasing dreams and facing father time deep like the grandest canyon wild like a stallion

if you can't see my heart you might be blind you can knock me down but you can't keep no chains on me i was born free i was born free i was born free born free and i'm not good at long goodbyes but look into my eyes i was born free... ♪